[mlyle]

> The first plane ever flies, and people think "we can fly to the moon soon!". Yet powered flight has nothing to do with space travel, no connection at all.

You eventually said winged flight much later-- trying to make your point a little more defensible. That's why I started explaining to you the very big connections between powered flight and space travel ;)

I pretty much completely disagree with your wall of text, and it's not a very well reasoned defense of your prior handwaving. I'm going to move on now.

[b112]

Yet powered flight has nothing to do with space travel, no connection at all. Gliding in the air via low/high pressure doesn't mean you'll get near space, ever, with that tech. No matter how you try.

Winged flight == "low/high pressure" flight, it's how an airplane wing works and provides lift.

[mlyle]

Maybe you just said what you wanted to say extremely poorly. Like "wing technology doesn't get you closer to space." I mean, of course, fins and distribution of pressure are important, but a relatively small piece.

On the other hand, powered flight and the things we started building for powered flight got us to the moon. "Powered flight" got us to turbojets, and turbomachinery is the number one key space launch technology.

Anyways, bye.

[b112]

Maybe you just said what you wanted to say extremely poorly.

Or maybe you didn't read closely? You claimed I didn't mention winged flight, yet I mentioned that and the method of winged flight. Typically, that means you say "Oh, sorry, I missed that" instead of blaming others.

I have refuted technology paths in prior posts. Refute those comments if you wish, but just restating your position without refuting mine doesn't seem like it will go anywhere.

And if you don't want a reply? Just stop talking. Don't play the "Oh, I'm going to say things, then say 'bye' to induce no response" game.

Just debate fairly.

[mlyle]

You gave a big wall of text. You made statements that can't really be defended. If you'd been talking just about wings, you could have made that clear (and not in one possible reading of a sentence that follows an absolutist one).

> Just debate fairly.

The thing I felt like responding to, you were like "noooo, i didn't mean that at all.

> > > > > Yet powered flight has nothing to do with space travel, no connection at all.

Pretty absolute statement.

> > > > > Gliding in the air via low/high pressure doesn't mean you'll get near space, ever, with that tech.

Then, I guess you're saying this sentence is trying to restrict it to "airfoils aren't enough to go to space", and not talk about how powered flight lead directly to space travel... Through direct evolution of propulsion (turbo-machinery), control, construction techniques, analysis methods, and yes, airfoils.

I guess we can stay here debating the semantics of what you originally said if you really want to keep talking. But since you're walking away from what I saw as your original point, I'm not sure what you see as productive to say.